nige1 Posted April 26, 2013 Report Share Posted April 26, 2013 Iraq Iran all excellent points.....but I ask what did the scots do? anything? I hope you understand my point ... No :( .. but you make excellent points. Just examples reinforcing previous posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted April 26, 2013 Report Share Posted April 26, 2013 Iraq Iran ok nigel and what are the scots doing about iran and what should the usa do? I fully agree that doing nothing is a decision with consequences see Syria when it comes to the scots and americans. so far 80000 dead.....many many more injured...sarin gas used again my only point is for us, for me, to turn away means many killed and many more injured. But do we want to send our children or grandchildren into these hell holes or turn away and hope? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted April 26, 2013 Report Share Posted April 26, 2013 I have no doubt that the reporters "bigged it up" for the sensationalism, but there remains to my mind a concern that had the victim not had the excuse of suffering from Parkinson's, perhaps his 5 hour stretch in the cells might have been somewhat more aggrevated; just for looking grumpy.I am reminded of a time when I was in the Army, and Bob Hope came to entertain the troops. Our sergeant called us together and instructed us: "you will go to the entertainment, and you will be entertained". B-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted April 26, 2013 Report Share Posted April 26, 2013 I am reminded of a time when I was in the Army, and Bob Hope came to entertain the troops. Our sergeant called us together and instructed us: "you will go to the entertainment, and you will be entertained". B-) black I will assume that at your age...your young age you followed orders....at this time? otoh did you hire a lawyer and sue? ---- I hope you and others see my point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted April 26, 2013 Report Share Posted April 26, 2013 all excellent points.....but I ask what did the scots do? anything? I hope you understand my point but you make excellent points.I wonder why "doing" is by some always considered a necessity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyberyeti Posted April 26, 2013 Report Share Posted April 26, 2013 all excellent points.....but I ask what did the scots do? anything? I hope you understand my point but you make excellent points.The Scots (Brown and Blair) aided and abetted the US by lying to the British people and getting us embroiled in Iraq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted April 28, 2013 Report Share Posted April 28, 2013 The Scots (Brown and Blair) aided and abetted the US by lying to the British people and getting us embroiled in Iraq. ok given I am Scottish part scot....what do you do now ...I mean today about Iran....and Syria......what is your policy? today..... again we agree do nothing means die. to do nothing means people die... sorry I don't mean to put you on the spot only that to do nothing means people die.....really die.. I agree other stuff is bad.------------------------ sidenote I know miners hate thatcher but is that true of most scots? I read how Scotland hates thatcher..? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted April 28, 2013 Report Share Posted April 28, 2013 I wonder why "doing" is by some always considered a necessity. jWinston as always you raise a common question...a great question ok how many die from doing nothing how many hurt from doing nothing does it matter? ok that last ? is the hard one. You decide.---- my point my only point is that to do nothing may say 100,000 people die since I don't know everything, everything 100% IK think many believe the answer is zero. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyberyeti Posted April 28, 2013 Report Share Posted April 28, 2013 sidenote I know miners hate thatcher but is that true of most scots? I read how Scotland hates thatcher..?It's true, this is due to the imposition of the "poll tax" which caused riots everywhere but was brought in for Scotland ahead of the rest of the UK as well as the closures in mining/steelworking and I think shipbuilding which seriously hit Scotland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted April 28, 2013 Report Share Posted April 28, 2013 jWinston as always you raise a common question...a great question ok how many die from doing nothing how many hurt from doing nothing does it matter? ok that last ? is the hard one. You decide.---- my point my only point is that to do nothing may say 100,000 people die since I don't know everything, everything 100% IK think many believe the answer is zero. Mike, I only know that some 50,000 young men lost lives when the US decided to "do something" about Vietnam, and I know the outcome is that the US did not get its way. I do not think the US can ever repay the losses suffered. If the powerful politicians wish to go to the front lines and fight themselves, I support them. Otherwise, not so much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flem72 Posted April 29, 2013 Report Share Posted April 29, 2013 If you can keep your head when all about you men are losing theirs.... you must be a drummer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flem72 Posted April 29, 2013 Report Share Posted April 29, 2013 Mike,I only know that some 50,000 young men lost lives when the US decided to "do something" about Vietnam, and I know the outcome is that the US did not get its way. I do not think the US can ever repay the losses suffered.If the powerful politicians wish to go to the front lines and fight themselves, I support them. Otherwise, not so much. The tragedy of VietNam was that we did not fight the war to win. *$% politicians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted April 29, 2013 Report Share Posted April 29, 2013 Today I read that the Army has said — repeatedly — that it does not want or need any more new Abrams tanks of the current generation*. The Congress has said "nonetheless, you will have them" — to the tune of a half billion dollars of our money. *$% politicians, indeed. *The Army wants to wait for the next generation tank, which industry will not be prepared to produce until 2017. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted April 29, 2013 Report Share Posted April 29, 2013 The tragedy of VietNam was that we did not fight the war to win. *$% politicians.Same in Korea. Nuke those damned Chinese, you know it makes sense. *$% politicians. Today I read that the Army has said — repeatedly — that it does not want or need any more new Abrams tanks of the current generation*. The Congress has said "nonetheless, you will have them" — to the tune of a half billion dollars of our money. *$% politicians, indeed. *The Army wants to wait for the next generation tank, which industry will not be prepared to produce until 2017.Is the factory where they are produced in a marginal constituency by any chance? Anyone who thinks that American military strategy is decided by what is best for the country rather than getting people elected is extremely naive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted April 29, 2013 Report Share Posted April 29, 2013 The tragedy of VietNam was that we did not fight the war to win. *$% politicians. The tragedy of Vietnam was that we were there at all. The ***** politicians had far more reason to want to win that conflict than the poor idiots who were drafted and sent off to get their asses shot off in a stinking jungle halfway across the world. If we really didn't "fight the war to win", I suspect that the main reason was that those who were expected to bear the costs of carrying out such a strategy weren't willing to pay it. (And I can't say that I blame them) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billw55 Posted April 29, 2013 Report Share Posted April 29, 2013 True, payoffs for certain districts is likely part of the tank deal. But also consider: if they stop ordering tanks for four years, the tank factories will close, all the workers will take other jobs. So when it is time to build tanks again in 2017, we won't be able to. I suspect they reason that some trickle of production must be maintained so that the capacity is maintained. Similar with certain military shipyards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted April 29, 2013 Report Share Posted April 29, 2013 Half a billion dollars is more than "a trickle". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billw55 Posted April 30, 2013 Report Share Posted April 30, 2013 Half a billion dollars is more than "a trickle".I am thinking in units of tanks rather than dollars. How many tanks is that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted May 1, 2013 Report Share Posted May 1, 2013 To be honest I'm not sure. And now that I think of it, I believe I mis-remembered the amount. It was not half a billion, it was half a trillion. Added: I just did a web search and came up with about 8.6 billion for an Abrams, so we're talking about something like 50 tanks or so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted May 3, 2013 Report Share Posted May 3, 2013 Only when we are speaking of government spending is it reasonable to say "Half a billion?, No, that sounds too small. Must be half a trillion." Half a billion is only about a buck and a half per person. Cheap! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billw55 Posted May 3, 2013 Report Share Posted May 3, 2013 To be honest I'm not sure. And now that I think of it, I believe I mis-remembered the amount. It was not half a billion, it was half a trillion. Added: I just did a web search and came up with about 8.6 billion for an Abrams, so we're talking about something like 50 tanks or so.That can't be right. A submarine doesn't cost that much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted May 3, 2013 Report Share Posted May 3, 2013 6.21 million: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams but this answer is more entertaining: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070404053944AAK8mOe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted May 3, 2013 Report Share Posted May 3, 2013 Apparently I picked the wrong website from which to gather data. From an article in the Huffington post, five days ago, an upgraded Abrams costs $7.5 million. It's not clear whether that's the cost of the upgrade on an existing tank, or the cost for a whole new tank. The article mentions that the company has lost roughly 2/3 of its revenue over the past couple of years. This seems a clearcut case of "corporate welfare" and while I don't like the way the term is often used, I don't think the government should be in the business of shoring up any business, even those who regard themselves as "too big to fail". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FM75 Posted May 3, 2013 Report Share Posted May 3, 2013 To be honest I'm not sure. And now that I think of it, I believe I mis-remembered the amount. It was not half a billion, it was half a trillion. Added: I just did a web search and came up with about 8.6 billion for an Abrams, so we're talking about something like 50 tanks or so. Innumeracy is so sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted May 3, 2013 Report Share Posted May 3, 2013 Yes it is. I'm sorry if you have problems with arithmetic. Perhaps you should seek help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.